Patch: Build UNDER Slopes

Ev · Post by Ev » 26 Jun 2007 05:12

----------

Post by **peter1138** » 27 Jun 2007 09:00

This patch will not be accepted in its current form with macros scattered over it. As the author has refused to clear this up, this patch will remain out of trunk, unless someone else decides to fix it.

Ev · Post by Ev » 27 Jun 2007 21:50

As the ignorance may not dictate other people what to do, this patch "will remain out of trunk" in any form.
Don't modify or include it in ottd, remove copies.
I had runned into developer's idiocity and ignorance so much times that it leave no desire to code and play ottd.
Fare you well.

kaan · Post by **kaan** » 27 Jun 2007 22:12

Well then ...
Can someone repost the patch please, I never did get a look at it

NukeBuster · Post by **NukeBuster** » 27 Jun 2007 22:14

kaan wrote:Well then ...
Can someone repost the patch please, I never did get a look at it

I was just having the same thought... too bad I never saved it.

MJS · Post by **MJS** » 27 Jun 2007 22:29

Ev wrote:Don't modify or include it in ottd, remove copies.

So I'll put my copy online just so you can have a look at it. I have no clue about Evs coding style, which apparently put him into trouble; but I believe we should at least pay him the respect of not using his code. Still, if anyone wants to take a peak at the code to get ideas for a similar patch...

If Ev disagrees with me putting a copy back up, then I wouldn't complain if any mod would be so kind as to remove the attachment from this post again.

PS This is not the latest version, unfortunately; this is before Ev made some fixes to bring the code slightly more in line with general coding styles.

kaan · Post by **kaan** » 27 Jun 2007 22:36

MJS wrote:
Ev wrote:Don't modify or include it in ottd, remove copies.
So I'll put my copy online just so you can have a look at it. I have no clue about Evs coding style, which apparently put him into trouble; but I believe we should at least pay him the respect of not using his code. Still, if anyone wants to take a peak at the code to get ideas for a similar patch...

If Ev disagrees with me putting a copy back up, then I wouldn't complain if any mod would be so kind as to remove the attachment from this post again.

PS This is not the latest version, unfortunately; this is before Ev made some fixes to bring the code slightly more in line with general coding styles.

Thanks

Ev may or may not have the right to decide what happens to this patch.
In my opinion this patch is under the GPL simply because its a derived work of OTTD. If that is the case then it is open source and we can keep it and include any part of it we wish.

Digitalfox · Post by **Digitalfox** » 27 Jun 2007 23:00

Ev wrote:As the ignorance may not dictate other people what to do, this patch "will remain out of trunk" in any form.
Don't modify or include it in ottd, remove copies.
I had runned into developer's idiocity and ignorance so much times that it leave no desire to code and play ottd.
Fare you well.

I don't know what happen with you and dev's..

But we users don't have any guilty, and by removing your work, you're just looking like are hating everybody..

Sacro · Post by **Sacro** » 27 Jun 2007 23:06

Here is (AFAIK) the latest version, snagged yesterday, i was planning on seeing how much work was needed to bring it into line.

Ailure · Post by **Ailure** » 27 Jun 2007 23:08

Indeed, as someone pointed out on IRC, according to the GPL:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

So it's fully legal to continue work on his patch, whenever he wants that is another thing.

athanasios · Post by **athanasios** » 28 Jun 2007 00:43

I DON'T THINK SO.

EV was clear and sharp. So some respect to him. He never said that his patch was GPLd. If someone wants to continue with his patch he must PM to him and ask for his licence. And his statement that he will never play OTTD again was made out of anger; leave him some time to cool down. We don't have the luxury to miss another valuable member of the forums.

Ailure · Post by **Ailure** » 28 Jun 2007 01:16

Technically, from a legal standpoint his patch is under the GPL as it's "derived" from a codebase that is... GPL. Unless he wrote the patch manually without even looking at the openTTD sourcecode, as far I know it's GPL.

IANAL though.

DaleStan · Post by **DaleStan** » 28 Jun 2007 04:22

I'm with Ailure. A patch is a derived work of the code on which it is based. If that is the case (IANAL) the patch, being a distributed derived work of a GPLed work, must also be GPL. The fact that it was removed does not un-GPL it, nor does/will/can any other action that Ev may or may not take. Permissions granted under the GPL cannot be rescinded.

Therefore, Sacro is quite within his rights to redistribute the patch, since he received it legally[0], and GPL permits verbatim redistribution.

[0] This is important! Having your code stolen does not count as distribution, and so the distribution provisions of the GPL do not apply in that case. The GNU website, in fact, covers this case.

Haukinger · Post by **Haukinger** » 28 Jun 2007 06:13

DaleStan wrote:If that is the case (IANAL) the patch, being a distributed derived work of a GPLed work, must also be GPL.

You say it _must_ be GPL, but that doesn't mean it actually is. You might force the author with a lawsuit to release it under GPL, but just because it has to be released under GPL, you can't possibly ignore the actual license. Afterall, the whole ottd project is kind of pirated, then how can something derived from it be legally GPL ?
I fully understand Ev.

DeletedUser21 · Post by **DeletedUser21** » 28 Jun 2007 06:30

Whoa! Recap, Ev made a patch, but got rejected because of the coding style, now Ev leaves in anger. Now I don't know what happend but it sounds a bit lame to me, if it's broken why not fix it? If the code is to dirty for inclusion, then unravel it. I mean why all the extra hassle?

DaleStan · Post by **DaleStan** » 28 Jun 2007 06:35

Haukinger:
The GPL cannot be used to force anyone to distribute anything unless binaries have been provided. But that's immaterial. The patch has already been released. The discussion now is whether the GPL covers its release.

I believe you're trying to arguing that OpenTTD is not technically GPLed? The way I see it, you have two choices for that argument:
1) The application of the GPL to OpenTTD is not legal.
2) The application of the GPL to OpenTTD is legal.

If the first, you are yourself guilty of copyright violation, because you have a copy of OTTD. Unless you have some other license from some party who *is* authorized to license the OpenTTD code, you're producing some pretty interesting self-incriminating testimony here.
If the second, then OpenTTD is legally GPL, and Ev's patch is therefore required to be GPL.

Mr. X:
Because Ev is an otherwise intelligent coder who can't admit that he could have possibly been wrong. (Something like an extreme version of me, come to think of it.)

mamuf · Post by **mamuf** » 28 Jun 2007 09:52

I don't know where is the truth - can we continue to work on the original code of this patch or can not we?

But as I am looking at the code itself, these macros could be easilly converted into functions and I really don't see any reason why these pieces of code are macros. The functions should be defined inline and then we can ask for merge with the trunk hapilly, I think

.

prissi · Post by **prissi** » 28 Jun 2007 15:05

Technically, if you have published something under GPL, it remains GPLed. If the patch was GPL (but whithout a statement one really does not know), then it would remain GPL. The patch is not a derived work, since it was not distributed in binary form and without the original source.

I am entitled to modify any GPL program for my personal use without publishing my changes if I do not distribute in any form. Doing a patch is imho not distribution. Therefore, imho it is legal (although not nice) to withdraw a patch. Anyway, there will be lots of bitrot fast.

And looking at the latest versions, macros defining that lives only some lines is not a good programming style and obfuscating things a lot.

Haukinger · Post by **Haukinger** » 28 Jun 2007 15:49

DaleStan wrote:Haukinger:If the second, then OpenTTD is legally GPL, and Ev's patch is therefore required to be GPL.

Exactly. "Required to be GPL". Not "released under GPL". That is, you can force him to release it under GPL. Until that is done, he can release it under whatever license he wants.

My point was that some one who distributes and develops an essentially pirated game shouldn't be so narrow-minded when it comes to licensing.

MJS · Post by **MJS** » 28 Jun 2007 16:52

So shan't we just agree that we do not use Ev's code, but that someone writes a similar patch of his own? Whether or not he draws his inspiration from Ev's code is then wholly his own choice, which we need not know about.

Transport Tycoon Forums

Patch: Build UNDER Slopes

How?

Who is online